Having a PEP-Web subscription grants you access to IJP Open. This new feature allows you to access and review some articles of the International Journal of Psychoanalysis before their publication. The free subscription to IJP Open is required, and you can access it by clicking here.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Viewing the full text of this document requires a subscription to PEP Web.

If you are coming in from a university from a registered IP address or secure referral page you should not need to log in. Contact your university librarian in the event of problems.

If you have a personal subscription on your own account or through a Society or Institute please put your username and password in the box below. Any difficulties should be reported to your group administrator.

Username:

Password:

Can't remember your username and/or password? If you have forgotten your username and/or password please click here. Once there, click the 'Forgotten Username/Password' button, fill in your email address (this must be the email address that PEP has on record for you) and click "Send." If this does not work for you please click here for customer support information.

Toward the Coexistence of Effort and Lack: Commentary on Paper by Cynthia Dyess and Tim Dean

Ken Corbett, Ph.D.

By vigorously arguing for the utility of the lacanian real, dyess and dean seek to illustrate a theoretical scaffolding for that which cannot be emotionally understood. By locating gender in the real (following Copjec, 1994), they seek to positiongender outside emotional understanding and/or communicative process. Aligned with the real, gender becomes an “inescapable failure of meaning,” a “stumbling block” that cannot be mastered either through reason or empathy, and as such subverts full relationality. If gender is the pulse of Dyess and Dean's essay, relationality is the heart; gendder serves as the “prime example” of their proposition not only that signification is limited but that full relationality is structurally impossible. As they explain in footnote 2, they pursue gender's limits in the service of their Lacanian project of “reimagin[ing] relationality—and hence community—in terms of impediment, impossibility, and failure.”

It seems likely that many analysts will readily recognize the impossibility of which Dyess and Dean speak—that illusory quality of gender, its inexplicable and ineradicable oscillation, its slippery silence, and at times its sheer lack of “it-ness.” At the same time, though, it seems equally likely that many analysts will not readily resonate with how Dyess and Dean conceive of gender's impossibility and in particular with how they conceive gender and relationality relative to the authority they grant to the real.

In part, I am proposing that this lack of resonance is a consequence of Dyess and Dean's employment of a way of thinking that is not familiar to most American analysts.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]